* This proposed compromise was rejected by business groups and the Tribune and Sun-
Times editorial boards several weeks ago, but it is not a bad idea at all and should be revisited…
Illinois Gov. Pat Quinn is asking lawmakers to approve both rival plans on how to solve the state’s nearly $100 billion pension crisis. But it’s unclear if legislative leaders will agree. […]
Quinn proposes that lawmakers vote on a bill that combines the two proposals at a June 19 special session. Madigan’s plan would be the primary plan and Cullerton’s would serve as a “back-up” in case Madigan’s is rejected by the courts.
Madigan expressed concerns Monday that the Quinn proposal would be too complicated.
It wouldn’t be too complicated, Madigan just doesn’t want to compromise yet.
*** UPDATE *** Tribune…
“This is like a lot of things in the legislature,” Madigan said. “You can make it complicated if you wish, or you can keep it simple. Let me say it again: The best pension bill that passed so far, and the one that does the most cost savings is the House bill, and that’s in the Senate. And the governor ought to work to get that passed.” […]
Senate President John Cullerton said Quinn has asked him to re-introduce legislation that would combine two differing approaches, the idea being if one portion of the legislation is thrown out by the court the rest of the measure would stand.
One portion of the proposal would push back retirement dates, ask employees to pay more for benefits and scale back annual cost of living increases. The other portion would allow workers and retirees to keep their health care and receive reduced benfits, or keep their current pension plan but give up health care. The measure would not go into effect for another year, meaning it would only need a simple majority to pass instead of three-fifths support.
Cullerton said it was unclear if his new proposal would have the votes needed to pass the Senate. Even if it did, Madigan made no promise to call the measure before the House.
Cullerton acknowledged there was not an agreed way forward, but said “we’re going to proceed anyway.”
* Related…
* Quinn blames legislature for unresolved pension crisis
* Little urgency, a lot of politicking in Illinois over deepening pension crisis
* Finke: Don’t count on special session being so special
* Rosenthal: Nothing special about upcoming legislative session
* Hinz: If only the state’s pension fight were just about money
* Carrigan: Pension bill was rightly rejected
* Despite windfall, Illinois still to lag on bills
* Editorial: Lawmakers still living a fiscal fantasy
* Chicago Democrats control government, downstate still big contender
* Fracking companies focus on southern Illinois sites
* Quinn has a full desk of legislative decisions
- Commonsense in Illinois - Monday, Jun 10, 13 @ 1:26 pm:
So let’s just say the Court passes on ruling on either provision…if contained in the same Public Act, which one prevails. No, it’s unwise to competing proposals in the same bill on the come bet that the supremes will rule one unconstitutional. Don’t know how to get around that, except that each chamber passes the opposite chamber’s proposal.
- Abe the Babe - Monday, Jun 10, 13 @ 1:32 pm:
==if contained in the same Public Act, which one prevails==
Presumably the Cullerton language would lay dormant only until the supreme court invalidates the Madigan portion.
- Rich Miller - Monday, Jun 10, 13 @ 1:33 pm:
===So let’s just say the Court passes on ruling on either provision…if contained in the same Public Act, which one prevails.===
Then Madigan’s bill stays the law.
===Don’t know how to get around that, except that each chamber passes the opposite chamber’s proposal. ===
You can’t have two competing laws active at once. You want a nightmare? That’s it.
- Michelle Flaherty - Monday, Jun 10, 13 @ 1:35 pm:
It’s like Squeezy is eating himself.
The gov liked SB 1 when it iwas in the Senate.
It becomes something very different in the House, and he decided he liked that too.
Now, he wants it back to what it was originally, except that now it requires 3/5ths to pass.
Genius timing.
- Ahoy! - Monday, Jun 10, 13 @ 1:38 pm:
Correct me if I”m wrong, but those who were opposed to combining the two bills were against it because it made it “easier” on the Supreme Court to rule the “house bill” as unconstitutional. Do these people realize the Supreme Court already knows about the other bill?
Assuming the Supreme Court doesn’t read the papers is probably a bad legal strategy.
- walkinfool - Monday, Jun 10, 13 @ 1:46 pm:
It seems that “it’s too complicated” might be more about the presentation to the courts, which will have to be very carefully crafted.
Pretty hard to make a firm case for the required extreme fix due to an emergency situation, while having a second option in the package, or even in the wings. Do you then have to defend plan A, by saying plan B would not be sufficient?
- Cassiopeia - Monday, Jun 10, 13 @ 1:54 pm:
Quinn’s desperation is evident. This does not portend well for the special session.
- anon - Monday, Jun 10, 13 @ 1:58 pm:
Misleading reporting. The Cullerton plan most definitely does not allow an employee to elect to “keep their current pension plan.” The failure to have that as an option is precisely why the Cullerton plan is every bit as unconstitutional as the Madigan plan.
- Rudy - Monday, Jun 10, 13 @ 2:07 pm:
The Governor clearly supports the Madigan bill. So they must be working on Cullerton.
Didn’t the combo bill die as a possibility after the Senate sat down with the unions to negotiate a compromise solution? Are all those Senators who voted against SB1 last week going to suddenly approve it?
Madigan is the primary architect of the problem needing fixing, and now holds the key to a compromise solution. He wears the issue. His preferred key just doesn’t fit the lock.
- archimedes - Monday, Jun 10, 13 @ 2:14 pm:
“No agreed way forward, but we’re going to proceed anyway.”
I guess that kind of describes Quinn.
- Keep Calm and Carry On - Monday, Jun 10, 13 @ 2:16 pm:
Funny how the discussion shifts.
Lest we forget, there is a bill that passed the Senate with a wide margin.
It also enjoys a great deal of support in the House.
How about this: Let’s have the House vote on the bill.
Then we can talk about compromise if it fails.
Otherwise, Gov. Quinn, please “let the will of the people be the law of the land.”
- Tsavo - Monday, Jun 10, 13 @ 2:22 pm:
3/5th’s vote not needed, according to this article.
Quinn proposes that lawmakers vote on a bill that combines the two proposals at a June 19 special session. Madigan’s plan would be the primary plan and Cullerton’s would serve as a “backup” in case Madigan’s is rejected by the courts. The legislation’s implementation date would be pushed back until next June so as not to require a “supermajority” - three-fifths of a chamber’s votes - for passage.
Read more: http://www.sj-r.com/breaking/x373359518/Quinn-legislative-leaders-meeting-about-pensions#ixzz2VqJcLhvI
- facts are stubborn things - Monday, Jun 10, 13 @ 2:30 pm:
Solution…vote on SB2404 in the house. The peoples house should have a vote.
- steve schnorf - Monday, Jun 10, 13 @ 2:33 pm:
Perhaps the Senate might send the House salary cap bill to the Governor
- DuPage Moderate - Monday, Jun 10, 13 @ 2:54 pm:
So there are those who are wondering whether Madigan’s intransigence has nothing at all to do with pensions or budgets and everything to do with making Quinn look weak to clear the way to the Governor’s mansion for Lisa.
- archimedes - Monday, Jun 10, 13 @ 2:59 pm:
The House Salary Cap bill would be a good test case for the courts. The bill circles back to the original argument (from Sidely Austin) about what is protected - benefits already earned or benefits not yet earned.
- Pacman - Monday, Jun 10, 13 @ 3:04 pm:
This from the SJR “This is like a lot of things in legislation, you can make it complicated if you wish or you can keep it simple,” Madigan said. “I think this is the time for the governor to step up meet with the Senator Cullerton and individual senators and vote for the House pension proposal.” Pretty much sums up Madigan’s position. My way or the Hiway!
Read more: http://www.sj-r.com/breaking/x373359518/Quinn-legislative-leaders-meeting-about-pensions#ixzz2VqUD3ZBS
- facts are stubborn things - Monday, Jun 10, 13 @ 3:05 pm:
@steve schnorf - Monday, Jun 10, 13 @ 2:33
I would like to se SB2404 voted on in the house, but would not object to salery cap or very gradual increase in retirement age in HB1. They need to pass those seperate so the SC could rule on them seperatly.
- In the know - Monday, Jun 10, 13 @ 3:13 pm:
So which is it, are the Supreme Court too stupid to sort through an “if not A then B” syllogism? too stupid to realize that their pensions (though not in the current bill) are next? or smart enough to realize that Speaker’s “I’m confident that at least 4 of them will vote to uphold it” statement undermines their perceived independence and credibility.
- Soccertease - Monday, Jun 10, 13 @ 3:30 pm:
This judicial decision making by the legislature through the media ain’t gonna work.
- Michelle Flaherty - Monday, Jun 10, 13 @ 3:40 pm:
I’m sure that by the 19th the governor will have a new preferred version that he wants approved.
- Decaf Coffee Party - Monday, Jun 10, 13 @ 4:13 pm:
Just wondering, could the governor take a combined bill and veto the “Part B” section?
- facts are stubborn things - Monday, Jun 10, 13 @ 4:34 pm:
@Decaf Coffee Party - Monday, Jun 10, 13 @ 4:13 pm:
No, the bill would be written such that the Gov. would have to veto all of it or none of it.
- Quinn T. Sential - Monday, Jun 10, 13 @ 4:36 pm:
{Cullerton acknowledged there was not an agreed way forward, but said “we’re going to proceed anyway.”}
We’re going to proceed anyway with each chamber approaching the problem independently rather than cohesively or collaboratively, and we should be able to clock out of Springfield and be back to the district in time to get at least 9 holes in before dark, and maybe even include a cook-out fund-raiser and raffle afterwards.
- Abe the Babe - Monday, Jun 10, 13 @ 4:39 pm:
==No, the bill would be written such that the Gov. would have to veto all of it or none of it. ==
So they are going write in a bill that the gov may not use a constiutiionally provided power (amendatory veto). dont think so.
- Quinn T. Sential - Monday, Jun 10, 13 @ 4:59 pm:
That picture that Mother Tribune has up of Madigan appearing to push Cullerton off of the stage is just begging for a Caption Contest:
http://www.chicagotribune.com/
- Andrew Szakmary - Monday, Jun 10, 13 @ 5:05 pm:
The insanely extreme, punitive, patently illegal and unconstitutional measures in the Madigan Bill have basically been rejected twice, by large margins, in the Senate. How many more times are they going to try to muscle this nonsense through the Senate, let alone the Illinois Supreme Court and federal courts? What will it take for Quinn and Madigan to finally realize that you cannot just willy-nilly renege on contractual obligations whenever you find it convenient, and begin doing the difficult things (raise taxes, cut non-contractual spending) that should have been done forty years ago?
- Just The Way It Is One - Monday, Jun 10, 13 @ 5:20 pm:
Wow–this is phenomenal; exactly the option we all discussed several weeks ago on this Blog, and which Mr. Cullerton and Rep. Nekritz (and others) also voiced support for as a Compromise, if either the House or Senate versions couldn’t get passed individually. And I’ve seconded the idea for weeks myself…! Why not? If all else fails, in terms of Options A or B, you take C–Period! As the old saying goes, “If the shoe fits, wear it!” This is a reasonable alternative and compromise which a solid majority in the Legislature can and should back. It’s not perfect (but what IS in life?), it has enough to satisfy overall the objective of significant Pension Reform, or at least appease everyone at least enough on both Sides of the Aisle to pass, most folks from both Chambers will like at least something in it, and is bound to be upheld as Constitutional one way or another…!
Go for it–or at least something very close to it, for land’s sake, and you’ll all have done a great service and good for the hard-working, tax-paying citizens of our Great State–+ you’ll all sleep a lot better when it’s over and the Governor’s pen THANKfully inks out his signature on it (not to mention ALL Illinoisans who have some sense about what’s going on and how critically important it is that this new Law–one we could ALL be proud of–FINALLY gets done)…!
- Ruby - Monday, Jun 10, 13 @ 6:07 pm:
Quinn T. Sential @ 4:36 pm
Thank you for bringing some much needed humor to this discussion of fantasy solutions to the Illinois state pension problem.
- DuPage Dave - Monday, Jun 10, 13 @ 6:29 pm:
None of the bills are constitutional in that they diminish the benefits of the pension system. Cullerton’s version of Sophie’s Choice is a sad joke. “We can’t diminish your benefits (plural in the Constitution), so you have to choose which one will be diminished.”
It is as if the workers created this whole system rather than the General Assembly- certainly we are being blamed for the financial situation.
“A pox on both their Houses” is apt, even if a slight misquote from W.S.
- Norseman - Monday, Jun 10, 13 @ 6:34 pm:
The news had Madigan’s solution. Gov, convince the Senate to go along! Ah, progress we are saved!
- MidwayGarden - Monday, Jun 10, 13 @ 10:52 pm:
I don’t follow this as closely as many of you. At least the stated concern is that the House bill isn’t Constitutional. So what about changing Article 8 Section 5? I take it the chances of a Constitutional Convention (failed in 2008 1.5 M for / 3.0 M against) are near zero. But what of the legislature proposing an amendment to modify? Is that also near zero to get the required votes?
- Dude Abides - Tuesday, Jun 11, 13 @ 12:16 am:
Midway, if the state did decide to amend the constitution it would not affect those already retired. The state already has a contractual obligation to pay the pension already earned. That would constitute an ex post facto law to take away the pension already earned.
It would also be illegal to take away the retirement benefit that active workers have earned up to the present time. Really the only question that might not be completely clear is whether you can change the retirement benefit of active workers going forward. Many people believe that once a worker is hired and signs his papers he is entitled to the retirement benefit that existed at the time he signed on.
- facts are stubborn things - Tuesday, Jun 11, 13 @ 8:01 am:
@Abe the Babe - Monday, Jun 10, 13 @ 4:39 pm
The bill will be constructed such that there is an option A bill standing alone and an option B bill that stands alone. The bill will be written such that option B will become law if the SC shoots down option A. If the Govenor used his amendatory vito power (line and reduction veto is for appropriations) then presumebly the senate would not vote to approve or refuse to vote on it period. The amendatory veto must be approved by both houses or an override of both. The approval only needs a majority.
- Another Anon - Tuesday, Jun 11, 13 @ 8:45 am:
=====Just a thought from a “Hillbilly in Southern Illinois” as Rich described us during a panel discussion at UIS on Friday.===== Speaker Madigan has bigger fish to fry. He is tasked with trying to figure out how to spin this entire boondoggle into a political plus for Lisa Madigan’s run for Governor. He is fully aware that his (punitive) proposal will never pass constitutional muster. He knew when he crafted the bill that it would never pass. Senator Cullerton’s bill does everything needed to get a handle on the problem. There is no need to punish retirees and workers just because our elected leaders are, and have been, lacking integrity and fiscal acuity. My crystal ball sees the future political ads….”Lisa Madigan solves the worst pension problem in the country.” Her father must be very proud.
- facts are stubborn things - Tuesday, Jun 11, 13 @ 9:07 am:
@facts are stubborn things - Tuesday, Jun 11, 13 @ 8:01 am:
Should have written - both houses must approve the amendatory vetor or it has been overridden.
- facts are stubborn things - Tuesday, Jun 11, 13 @ 9:12 am:
The key point I am trying to convey, is that a veto of option B therfore only leaving option A is not going to happen. The idea that a bill consisting of option A and then a back up of option B gets an amendatory veto of option B thus it was just a Trojan hoarse to get SB1 to become law is not going to happen because the law is constucted such that option B is the senate version and they must approve if he amends that bill.
- Pacman - Tuesday, Jun 11, 13 @ 9:25 am:
All this is an exercise in futility, as both bills are unconstitutional. Just more delay games while trying to appease the bond houses. I still believe the plan is to pass an unconstitutional bill expecting the SC to toss it and then tell the voters we tried but the courts won’t let us so now we need to raise your taxes.
- facts are stubborn things - Tuesday, Jun 11, 13 @ 9:56 am:
@Pacman - Tuesday, Jun 11, 13 @ 9:25 am:
I am not sure that is option A but I beleive you are correct in that why not throw it all up on the wall and see what sticks. If nothing sticks then you are correct…..we tried and now have political cover to do the correct thing. This is all playing out under the framework of how do we get re-elected and hold on to our power.
- anon - Tuesday, Jun 11, 13 @ 12:13 pm:
“Really the only question that might not be completely clear is whether you can change the retirement benefit of active workers going forward. Many people believe that once a worker is hired and signs his papers he is entitled to the retirement benefit that existed at the time he signed on.” The Illinois courts have clearly ruled time and time again that an employee is entitled to accrue pension benefits under the scheme in place at the time of hiring.